DARA LAKSHMI NARAYANA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the order dtd. 16/2/2022 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana in Criminal Petition No.1479 of 2022 refusing to quash the criminal proceedings in FIR No.82 of 2022 dtd. 1/2/2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda against the appellant Nos.1 to 6 herein (collectively referred as "appellants") under Ss. 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC", for short) and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ("Dowry Act", for short), the appellants have preferred this appeal.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the marriage of appellant No.1 husband and respondent No.2 wife was solemnised on 8/3/2015 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Chennakesava Swamy Temple, Marakapuram, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of respondent No.2 and appellant Nos.4 to 6 are sisters-in-law of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the appellant Nos.1 to 6 and accused No.7 who is her brother-in-law which was registered as FIR No.82 of 2022 dtd. 1/2/2022 for the offences punishable under Sec. 498A of the IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda. As per the said FIR, it was alleged that at the time of her marriage, the father of respondent No.2 gave net cash of Rs.10.00 lakhs, 10 tolas of gold, and other household articles as dowry and also spent Rs.5.00 lakhs towards marriage expenses. After the marriage, the couple started residing at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where appellant No.1 was working in Southern Railways. Out of their wedlock, respondent No.2 and appellant No.1 have 2 minor children. The first child was born in the year 2016 and the second child was born in the year 2017. After marriage, appellant No.1 started harassing her both physically and mentally for want of additional dowry. Appellant No.1 also used to abuse respondent No.1 in filthy language and used to suspect her character. He also used to come home inebriated and harassed her by having an illegal affair with one Mounika. In so far as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, respondent No.2 alleged that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry her.